Builder Plate Conundrum

[NW Mailing List]

Jim Nichols

Thanks for sharing your Dad's notes and research.  You have a real 
treasurer. The Nichols, Lewis and Bixby research gave us some really 
great history. Your dad was there and it was first hand information.  
Not sure who B. E. ? Lewis was or if he worked for the RR. I knew Arthur 
M. Bixby and was invited to his house with a group of local fans for 
movies and discussion on his roster.  Not sure who was there perhaps 
King, Hamilton, Sink, Aker and Plunkett.  Anyway, at that time I 
wondered why anyone would be interested in that old locomotive history 
in the late 50's.  Time has has changed my view on this.

Any chance the Nichols papers have any information on the M No. 483.  
This is the one that Baldwin shops installed the wrong builders plate.  
It got 28464  and should have been 28466. I sure would like to have 
climbed in the cab to see if it got the wrong top of crown marker. I 
don't think the builder plate was ever changed. The Baldwin records note 
the error and where the M plate went.

Jim Blackstock

On 2/27/2022 11:04 PM, NW Mailing List wrote:
> No need for a dynamo between headlight and stack because the drawing 
> shows an oil headlight. But by the time the 256 was done the headlight 
> was electric (and smaller) so it was moved forward to leave room for a 
> dynamo. Checking Dad's notes, he shows the builders plate on 256 as 
> follows: "DEC. 1890  No 47."  It is the only G he saw with the number 
> out of correct series, but he didn't make and comment about it. He did 
> manage to see a few F's, including the 169, but he did not record any 
> information about its plate. He shows 165 as "NOV. 1887  No 4" and 174 
> as "MAY 1888  No. 52."
>
> Jim Nichols
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist6.pair.net/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/attachments/20220228/eb33681e/attachment.htm>